Dear Ms. Jill Drilon,

Thanks for sending me the summary of the Management's report on the GRSC.

There is a famous proverb in Siraiki language that "falsehood have no footprints". However, sometimes, it is possible to expose lies and cheating. The Management's report on the GRSC is nothing but a bundle of lies. Many such lies in the Management's report can be easily exposed. Partcilarly, the complaints filed by local communities to the GRSC can be very instrumental in exposing such flasehood. I would just like to give two example.

Management report says:

There had been no flood damage at all in Sokkar village, although the protection bund was partly eroded (but not breached) at one section due to increased water velocity at a narrow bridge on the district road near the bund; and (v) the eroded spot of this bund was repaired by WAPDA immediately after the incident. The Nazim of Sokkar Union Council confirmed the Mission's findings about Sokkar village (Paragraph 32, Page No. 11)
Now look at the following excerpt from the complaint of the Nazim of Sokkar Union Council that was recieved by the Grievance Redress and Settlement Committee on August 22, 2003, just a day after the breach occurred in the protection bund.

The width of the protection bund around Sokkar town is narrow somwhere while wider at other points. Owing to less compaction and bad civil works quality, rowed-kohee breached the protection bund where the width was larger and thus rowed-kohee entered into the town on August 21, 2003. Luckily, local people succeeded to fill the breach with the help of two tractors. Moreover, quality of stone-pitching on the protection bund is very bad. Similarly, the height of the protection bund from southern side is also very low. We have many occasions mentioned these issues to the WAPDA but the result is zero. Heavy flooding can breach the protection any time and the town will be flooded.

Policy compliance might be an important issue but moral conduct is even more important than policy compliance. Take another example of such immoral conduct in the GRSC processes. Management's report on the GRSC says:

On 23 August 2003, the GRSC received an invitation from the office of Mr. Mushtaq Gadi, one of the Requesters, to attend a consultation meeting with the project affectees to be held the following day (24 August 2003), but 登nly as an observer.� Due to the short notice and the limited role as an observer, the senior GRSC personnel could not participate in the event, but one GRSC office staff was sent to observe the meeting. He subsequently informed GRSC that: (i) the meeting was held in a tent set up outside the Taunsa Town Hall and attended by about 150 people; (ii) two speakers gave speeches that urged the participants to: (a) not cooperate with GRSC, and (b) not pay abiana (irrigation service fee) to the Government; and (iii) apart from these speeches, there was no apparent consultation with the participants or opportunity for them to air their views.

The GRSC staff member who observed the Chashma Lok Sath kept himself secret and did not even introduce his identity. Was his role only spying and then producing wrong report? We have the full video recording of this event and can file it as an evidence.

Despite such immoral and uncivil conduct, Management thinks we should constructively engage in official processes such as the GRSC. Here the Management is mistaken. We are not consultants who can sell their conscience in return of lucarative rewards.

Regards,

Mushtaq Gadi